1 Opinions on the Posterior Analytics By Richard Rufus Translated by John Longeway from the transcription of Erfurt Quarto 312, fol. 29va-32vb, by Rega Wood [Rega Wood, along with a colleague of hers at Stanford, has gone through the translation carefully and made a large number of perceptive suggestions. In some cases I have taken liberties with the edition, and try to indicate where this has occurred.] [Part I] “All teaching and all learning.”1 [I Division 1] This book is divided into two parts. The first part deals with its principal subject; the second part, beginning at “Concerning principles,”2 deals with a certain question following from this. This second part, following on the principal subject, is about the flourishing of this teaching. The first part is further divided into two: the first considers a certain preliminary matter, the second the principal subject in itself, beginning at “We judge knowing to be. .”3 [I Exposition 1] The intention of the first part is to make clear the existence of its subject by making it clear that there is knowing, first by dealing with what is clear and so arriving at knowledge, namely that knowledge through which knowing arises. And on the same basis he resolves an argument claiming that there is no knowing. Note that in place of “knowing” (scire) or “knowledge” (scientia) he puts these names, “teaching” (doctrina) and “learning” (disciplina). We could understand that these three are all the same, but “knowledge” names something as a quality of the soul, “learning” (disciplina) names the same thing as it is received in the learner (in discipulo), and “teaching” (doctrina) as it proceeds from the teacher (a doctore). Or we could understand through the name “learning” the knowledge that arises in mathematics, and through the name “teaching” the knowledge that arises in other branches of learning, for truth is more obvious in mathematics, and on this account more quickly believed by the student. Hence the student does not contradict the master4 but remains in the position of a student. But in the other sciences, since the truth is not obvious, the student does not immediately believe, but contradicts and disputes with the master, and, as it were, becomes equal to the teacher and becomes teacher himself. These, then, from the position of each of the persons involved, can be called “teaching,” but the former, the mathematical branches of learning, can be called “learning,” because 1Posterior Analytics I 1, 71a1. 2Posterior Analytics I 10, 76a32. 3Posterior Analytics I 2, 71b9–10. 4 Perhaps Rufus is thinking of formal disputations, which are involved in learning other subjects, but not in learning mathematics, which proceeds by proofs from undisputed premises. 2 in them the student remains a student.5 [First Series] [I Question 1.1] We ask here first, why this book lacks a proem, even though it clearly has an epilogue. [I Question 1.2] Again, why does intellectual cognition have to arise from preexisting cognition any more than sensitive cognition does? [I Question 1.3] Again, if something known always arises in the intellect from something known beforehand, then either there will be an infinite regress or there will be something known to the intellect which does not become known to it, but this is absurd. Indeed, the intellect is bare of every cognition, like a tablet bare of every picture. And I speak here of the intellect of a human being.6 [I Question 1.4] Again, since enthymeme and example are codividing opposites with syllogism and induction, why does he say that enthymemes are syllogisms and examples induction? [71a10-11] [I Question 1.5] Again, why does he name “enthymeme” and “example” in the plural? [I Question 1.6] Again, regarding the second species, we ask what the reason is for appropriating the term syllogism for dialectical syllogism. [Reply to I Question 1.1] We should say to the first question that syllogism is said most of all of demonstrative syllogism. And for this reason it is, as it were, one and the same continuous treatise concerning syllogism without qualification and [then] demonstrative syllogism, just as we find elsewhere that the same treatise concerns something said both in general and primarily, for instance, concerning what can come to be and what can come to be primarily, as in the book On Coming-to-be, and concerning being and primary being in First Philosophy. And on this account this book and the book of the Prior Analytics have the same proem, namely that in the first book of the Prior Analytics, and a single epilogue, namely that at the end of the book at hand. [Reply to I Question 1.2] To the other question we should say that the sensitive power differs from the intellectual in this, that the sensitive is complete, needing no further disposition through another in order to receive its sensible. Hence it can receive a sensible, even though it is not previously disposed to do so by another, and thus it does not arise from preexisting [knowledge] etc. But the intellect, since it is an incomplete power, first needs to be completed by principles disposing and informing it so that it might receive a conclusion, and thus it cognizes from a preexisting cognition. [Reply to I Question 1.3] To the other, we reply that although the intellect is like a bare tablet 5 The usage of disciplina here for the mathematical sciences, and doctrina for the rest was already established, and Rufus is trying to explain and justify it. 6 The intellect of an angel does not depend on the senses to furnish it with concepts and first principles, and so, perhaps, is not in itself bare of every picture. 3 (tabula nuda),7 and lacks every cognition, it is simple with respect to each potential cognition.8 But we should understand that potentiality is twofold, essential and accidental. And we should understand, therefore, that what is potential in the first way is said to become (fieri) strictly speaking when it emerges (exit) into actuality, but whatever is potential in the second way is not said to become strictly speaking, but to be such. It is such unless it is prevented, and we say that it is essentially such even when it is accidentally not such, as a stone is essentially below [at the center, its natural place] even when it is accidentally high up [due to some violent movement]. We should understand, then, that the intellect is in accidental potentiality in respect of cognition of principles, but in respect of cognition of conclusions it is in essential potentiality. And thus, although it lacks from its creation every cognition of principles, and is potential in respect of these, and it emerges (exit) into the act of cognizing them, still it is not said strictly speaking here that cognition is produced (fiat)—that is only said of the cognition of the conclusion.9 It must be held, then, that there is no infinite regress, but it comes to a halt at the cognition of principles, which is not said to be produced within the soul, even though the soul [at first] lacks it. But this might be falsely understood were it to be understood that the possible intellect in respect of principles is in accidental potentiality without qualification, for then it would not need the agent intellect, and this is false. We should know that in respect of the reception of the subject and the predicate it is in essential potentiality and does need the agent intellect. But once it has received the understanding of the subject and predicate it does not need the agent intellect to compose them [to form principles],but in this respect it is in accidental potentiality. But in respect of the cognition of the conclusion after the reception of the subject and the predicate it is in essential potentiality, for then it needs a disposition gained through the reception of principles.10 [Reply to I Question 1.4] To the other, we should answer that an enthymeme infers its conclusion 7 Rega Wood notes that Bacon uses tabula rasa, “erased tablet,” here, possibly with the import that the tablet is not just bare, but has been wiped off, that is, the agent intellect is somehow damaged when infused into the body. For most of his life Bacon thought we could know something without the senses. For Rufus the possible intellect is simply bare—it has not been damaged, but rather never had anything on it, and the agent intellect can’t write anything on it without the senses. 8 That’s a literal enough translation... and it means? Rufus does a lot with nouns that would be more clearly done with verbs and adverbs. Here he probably means that it is potential without qualification in respect to each potential cognition. He goes on immediately to specify two ways in which it can be potential with a certain qualification, and to say that it is potential in respect of some cognitions in one of those ways, and in respect of other cognitions in the other way. So the point here seems to be that it is potential in respect of each cognition in one way or another, without specifying which way. 9 To be something in accidental potentiality, then, is to be such that no outside cause is needed to realize the potentiality. It may be that the potentiality is not realized, but every external condition needed for its realization is present, and that in which the potentiality is to be realized need only act itself to bring about the realization.